Imagine that you are walking downtown with your dog and decide to go to a restaurant, or shop. It is clear that your dog should not be accompanying you. As the New York Times contributor Jonathan Wolfe writes someone has thought about this dilemma and has come up with a solution in the form of pink and white kennels on commercial streets that you can rent for your dog.

Called the Dog Parker, these temperature controlled kennels have webcams inside, temperature controlled, and cost 20 cents a minute to use.
You register for the service, get a fob that allows you access to the kennels, and  you can use the 45 Dog Parker “houses” in Brooklyn,  or the new “houses” to be installed in other New York City locations in December. Dog Parker customer service maintains a 24 hour presence, and  can remotely unlock the kennel if the dog owner loses the fob. The intent of these kennels is to provide  “an alternative to leaving a dog at home or tying them up to a pole as one shops.” 

Not surprisingly reaction to this innovation has been mixed. As one dog owner observed “I think it’s the worst idea in the world. I would never take my dog anywhere where I would have to leave them in a box or tied up.” Other dog owner interviewed suggested that instead of a lock box for a dog outside a store, regulation needed to be updated to allow people to access shops and services with their animals.

The Dog Parker company has been in business since last year and is actively soliciting businesses to install the kennels outside their businesses to become a “dog-friendly” establishment, capturing customers with dogs, and minimizing liability by having the dogs inside their establishments. Only in New York City so far.

Its hard to believe but in the United States there are several states that historically privatized their shores and tidelands, creating a hodge podge of regulation and uncertainty about availability and access to what should be a public right~the access to beaches and shorelines. Washington State is among several that sold its tidelands and beaches 120 years ago on private titles, ending the practice in 1971. By that time 60 to 70 per cent of all Washington’s tidelands were privately owned with only 30 per cent of the shorelines accessible to the public.

Boundary lines on shores vary dependent on when a parcel was sold~if it was before 1911 the title extends to the mean low tide line, but parcels sold to 1971 extended to lowest low tide. There is public access available on any public road that ‘abuts’ a shoreline. That road has been interpreted by law as a legal public beach access.  And despite the fact that the beach is in “private ownership” the public trust doctrine states that anyone has the legal right to walk across private tidelands to reach public ones. This has not been challenged in court, and when it does, many in the legal profession suggest the “privatizing of beaches” will be over in Washington State.

As one visitor’s bureau states “Under the doctrine, many of the signs that say, ‘private tidelands and beach,’ go beyond their authority. However, the doctrine is an interpretation of state law and has yet to be challenged in court…Things could be different if the state were to put a higher priority on the preservation of public access by funding projects that help resolve questions of property ownership.”

There are two things that walkers and users of TransLink services would appreciate~across the board free internet that is not just at certain stations or tied to having a plan with a certain provider, and having washrooms. Yes, there are no washrooms at SkyTrain station or at major bus loops despite the fact that there is a universal need for such facilities.

Others have already written about the fact that in Metro Vancouver you can use public transit, or you can use a washroom, but you can’t do both on the TransLink system. This lack of facilities drew the ire of the Raging Grannies when they took public transit into Vancouver for a protest. They were so annoyed at the fact that TransLink did not provide washrooms that they wrote a song about it, and  followed up with the Vancouver Seniors’ Advisory Committee who also asked TransLink to get washrooms.

TransLink has had lots of reasons for not providing something everyone needs to use. The renovated SkyTrain stations along the Expo line even have space that has been prepped with plumbing for washrooms. TransLink has “issues” such as maintenance security and sanitation. But as Price Tags Vancouver has discussed before~ if Edmonton, Toronto and Paris can provide washroom facilities at some stations, surely Vancouver can as well.  You can take a look at this older copy of The Buzzer that provides a chart of which transit systems have washrooms.

TransLink is now saying that they are going to consider washrooms at SkyTrain stations and perhaps at bus loops according to the Daily Hive. Right now washrooms are for staff only and the only available washrooms for the public are at the SeaBus terminal. TransLink’s spokesperson is still repeating the same mantra saying “Transit systems in North America that provide washrooms often struggle with safety and cleanliness concerns of customers and the high cost of maintenance for the transit agency.”  

In the 21st century we should be providing for the comfort and convenience of passengers and making public transit an effortless alternative to using an automobile. That includes providing for the basic necessities of people using the system, and that means providing washrooms  that are universally accessible for all system users. Quite simply, public transportation customers on the go need to go. And providing universal access to free internet would be helpful too.

Via former City of Vancouver Councillor  and founder of Business in Vancouver magazine Peter Ladner is this CTV news article that researched an important question~what is the true cost of vehicle driving in a Canadian province?  The study undertaken by Trajectoire Quebec ” determined that even non-drivers spend an average of $1000 each year in costs related to the province’s roads.”

What was interesting is that while government spending on highways and roads has been increasing, it does not mean that the infrastructure is getting better or more multi-modal. The study found that public spending for roads from the Federal, Provincial and municipal governments had increased by 70 per cent in twenty years. In the Province of Quebec, that means that 43 billion dollars is paid each year for roads. Imagine~that amount is more than monetary inflation, and is much larger than any population increase in the province. The study found that the average family of four “contributes about $7,000 per year to government services related to automotive transport – everything from road repairs, to health care costs and policing – even if they don’t own a car.” 

And if you own a car, you are spending $13,000 more, meaning that Quebec households are spending over 20 per cent of their disposable income on transportation. That’s higher than the percentage spent on food or on education. Drivers are actually paying for using cars and car networks, and the study shows that public transit is less subsidized than private vehicles.

The report concludes that Quebec needs a sustainable mobility policy and that user-fees are needed to equitably pay for infrastructure used by private cars. Suburban developments also mean more sprawl and more reliance on the car, and the link needs to be made with politicians for “collective transportation” to move people. As the head of the Trajectoire Quebec organization noted  Copenhagen Denmark had a referendum successfully pass  to implement toll roads. “People having seen the way it was before, and the way it was after, and after there was a lot less congestion, so the people voted in favor of tolls.” 

You may remember the story, covered by Price Tags — and many other news outlets, some international — of a Vancouver dad who who was reported to provincial authorities for allowing his kids to use transit to get to school by themselves.

(The story stuck, by the way, well before that dad — business owner and affordable housing advocate Adrian Crook — decided to seek NPA nomination for Vancouver city council.)

Well, it happened again. But this time, the kerfuffle about childhood independence has led to the state of Utah bringing into effect the first “free-range” kids law in the U.S. 
As reported in the BBC News, this came about when a parent dropped his two kids off at a local park with the expectation that the kids would walk home on their own. A witness called 911 and the parent received a visit from Child Protective Services and was threatened with losing his children.

The new law provides Utah parents with children of “sufficient age and maturity” lawful means to grant their kids the freedom to perform such independent activities as walking to the library or to school by themselves.
The bill’s sponsor State Senator Lincoln Fillmore said the measure was inspired in part by a hope his own children, “would grow up learning how to be responsible for themselves…My law is not an attempt to say that this method of parenting is better than another method; we’re not making that judgement in law. We’re simply saying that for parents who do choose to give their kids some independence, there’s protection in the law for you doing so.”
While parents aren’t allowed to neglect their children, the state’s law never defined what ‘neglect’ actually meant. By adding some definitions to what is meant by neglect, parents are now allowed to afford their children the right to do some of the things that they themselves were allowed to do at the same age.

Allowing children to be unsupervised at times, it is believed, may allow children to become more effective adults. So why is this ‘free range’ concept with children so challenging?
Gail Saltz, American professor of psychology and author, says the reasons are two-fold — there’s a 25 hour news cycle of negative violent events, and, “present-day parenting is less communal than it used to be and has turned into a ‘competitive sport’ for many. 
Saltz says this results in parents’ tendency to ‘helicopter’ their children more often, “to appear as though they’re ‘winning’ against their peers.”
Regardless of the rationale, it’s undeniable that increased independence for children can increase their confidence and sense of place. This may be a first step back to allowing children connectivity with and desire to explore their own neighbourhoods, much like their parents did.